I pay taxes in the USA, and well, I am quite upset that I have no say whatsoever on where exactly my tax money go.

Other people feel the same way. Republicans may be angry at how they are pouring money into that Ponzi Scheme known as Social Security, and Democrats are fuming at how their money is being burnt in Iraq. Frankly, many people are upset, and they have no way of changing the situation, unless...

Here's an idea I got. Along with the regural Income Tax filing, you fill out a form that allows you to list three preferences to where your money goes. The first prefence states that 30% of the money goes to a cause that you like. The second preference states that 20% of the money goes to a cause that you like. The third prefrence states that 10% of the money goes to a cause you like. The remaining 50% can be used by the state however they want.

So, if a military person feels that the USA needs more money on the military, he lists on the form that he wants 30% of his Income tax to go to fund military projects. And then, 30% of his income tax will go and fund the military projects. If a person likes diplomacy, he can request that 30% of his income goes to forigen aid. And so on and so forth.

The 50% for the State is used as a way of ensuring that the government will be able to function and do what is necessary, but the other 50%, to be decided by the individual tax filer, makes the person filing the tax feels as though that he really is playing a role in the USA, and could inspire a sort of love.

Problem is: Well, would it work? Would you support it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Onion

"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.

In my area, tax dollars are used to build bank after f***ing bank in empty lots. I'm not joking at all, the last 4 empty lots we had sell had banks built onto them making our grand total in a 10 mile radius like 12 banks. We have a bunch of old geezers on the construction board that refuse to approve money flow into kid and teen centers around here even though they run rampant around the area and hang out around the movie theater for lack of things to do. We have no YMCA, we have no church center, we have no after school programs, we have no parks, and no places to hang out at all beside the two shopping centers a mile from each other.

Yeah, I'd like my tax money to go somewhere worth while but I doubt it will ever happen. Our 14 trillion dollar debt to the world is an example of America not knowing how to spend its money.

Steven Colbert is not a particularly good source. He's a comedian, not a political analyst. Aside from that, welcome to the Democratic Republic, where the Majority's opinion on Representatives rules. Now, if you don't like it, you can try China.

Don't like the way thngs are being done, should vote for someone else next election.

It's only a matter of time before [somewhat] younger politicians that are actually in touch with the times are elected into office. Maybe they'll do a better jpb spening our money.

Not only that, but the average joe on the street is hardly informed enough (since they don't have access to all info) to make proper decisions as to how tax dollars should be spent overall. People would be making a lot of decisions with only part of the required information. So in answer to SilentScope001's question. I don't think it has any way of working.

I'm well aware that about 30% of the Federal Budget goes to the military, however it is extremely naive to think that countries would like us and leave us alone if we didn't have a strong military. Israel has had to do the same thing, keeping and extremely strong military to actually prevent neighboring countries from attacking them, because it would be extremely stupid to do so.

Btw, if not for Israel, Saddam would have had nukes back in the late 1980s early 1990s.

Additionally, there is a reason the Constitution states the President is the Commander and Chief of the armed forces, because you can't run a war by a mob in command.

While a lot of tax money has been inappropriately spent, much of it can be blamed on Congress and their earmarks to legislation. Some earmarks can be justified but most cannot, we could go a long way towards balancing the budget by eliminating most of the earmarks.

Given how many/most politicians appear to love incumbency, the only real alternative we have is to keep enough pressure on them to do the correct thing. Throwing the bums out of office or starting a revolution are really the only means of changing the system. Unfortunately, as the WHO noted....meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Don't like the way thngs are being done, should vote for someone else next election.

It's only a matter of time before [somewhat] younger politicians that are actually in touch with the times are elected into office. Maybe they'll do a better jpb spening our money.

Well, you see, the government is spending all our money, not just my money. I like to know where MY money is going, and I like to know how to direct spending of it, but only that money.

It's hard to throw out the incumbents, but it really does not matter. If 51% of the epeople votes to spend 100% of the money in one area, then what about the 49% of the people? They have to pay too, even if they don't like the results. Democrats have to pay for the War in Iraq, Republicans have to pay for Social Security, etc. and that may not be fair for either party.

I know the government needs control over funds, that why most of the money is heading to government's control. But I do wonder of having taxpayers having a token amount of taxes that they get to decide where it goes to, similar to how citizens can vote to decide who they support. The rest of the money gets decided by the majority rule and by politicans, but we have all indepedent right over a small portion.

Prime: Prehaps the tax form would list catogeries that may allow for you to decide where the money can generally goes to, rather than individual programs. If you want more money for Police, you then write that you are earmarking parts of your taxes to the Police. The exact details of where the money that goes to the Police can be decided by the Police departments, but the fact that you are giving money to Police rather than other causes would be good.

Defenders of the System: I understand that our Leaders are democratically elected, but I am also worried about the rights of the indivudal in the process. We are a Democracy, but that doesn't mean the majority should be granted so much power over the minority. That's why we got the Bills of Right to stop the majority from attacking the minority.

But it's isn't just about the minority's views. I think it could be stated that most people (the majority) are funding projects they hate, and that they think that the money should be spent elsewhere. It could lead to political activism, but it is more likely to cause political disillusionment, and people deciding to boycott the government in question, refusing to vote for instance, keeping a hostile netruality towards both political parties. And the political activism won't have you take the money back that you funded for the projects you hate, you still fund them for the duration of the campagin, and you have an uncertain chance of actually succeding.

I like to give those people an ability to have some actual control over the government, because if they are given said power, prehaps we can stop this political disillusionment and ease this sort of hatred. Politicans and voters still manage most of the money, but having indivudals manage their own money allow them to realize that they are part of a Union, that they are part of the United States of America, and let them realize that they are in control of their own government rather than being under the control of the majority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Onion

"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.

Um...aren't people supposed to criticize my idea for being a hyper-democracy, like Prime did?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Onion

"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.

And what you make you think I'm going to attempt to campagin this to the US Senate? I don't want to be laughed upon.

I was thinking of merely getting my own state to approve to this, only for state taxes (maybe local as well, but again, I don't want to limit government power), and via a small form. I will need to know a bit more about how my state works, and how the intiviate system functions, but I could get this on the ballot to be voted on. What I really wonder is how much popular support would there be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Onion

"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.

SS, you'd need to get this on the Federal level to have a chance, and that means a constitutional amendment. It has been tried since the 60s when they suggested a line item veto in the federal budget, which went over like a lead baloon

'To argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason is as futile as to administer medicine to the dead.' Now who said that?